u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far as
I know)
Joe
I know)
Joe
-
-
Re: u_long valid C?
Joe Van Dyk wrote:[color=blue]
> u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far as
> I know)[/color]
It's not a C type, but the programmer may have used typedef to make it
a synonym for a C type. What it is, or should or shouldn't be, depends
on the programmer.
-
Re: u_long valid C?
Joe Van Dyk wrote:[color=blue]
> u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far as
> I know)
>[/color]
Yes. u_long might be a typedef for unsigned long in some environments.
--
Ian Collins.
Comment
-
Re: u_long valid C?
Joe Van Dyk <joe.vandyk@boe ing.com> writes:[color=blue]
> u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far
> as I know)[/color]
u_long is a valid C type if it's been defined as a typedef.
Doing so is, in my opinion, a bad idea. A typedef creates an alias
for an existing type. The purpose is either to create a more
meaningful name:
typedef unsigned char byte;
or to allow for the possibility that the underlying type might change:
typedef int32 int;
/* OR */
typedef int32 long;
u_long serves neither of these purposes. If you want unsigned long,
use unsigned long; don't make your reader guess whether "u_long" means
what it appears to mean. If there's any chance that your type
"u_long" might be defined as something other than unsigned long, don't
call it "u_long".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Comment
Comment